Date:         Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:55:48 -0500
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: earlier heading (Re: [MODS] mads descriptors)
Comments: To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Yes. It would just be "other". We thought it was confusing (since there's
a type earlier for related, which means that the name had changed). Also
it is to indicate an earlier form of rule for constructing the heading,
which was useful back in the 70s when we went from AACR1 to AACR2.

Rebecca

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Karen Coyle wrote:

> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
>
> >Nevermind the "earlierHeading" suggesting. We withdraw this part of the
> >proposal.
> >
> >
> So does that mean that what is effectively an earlier form of the
> heading is coded simply as a variant without reference to having been
> earlier? (This would make sense to me, just checking.)
>
> kc
>
> >--Ray
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> [log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
>